It is about time 40 megapixels became the new normal for DSLR's..... Progress marches on....

I don't know any pros who want a 40MP camera as their primary body. It may be nice for specific jobs but it will simply cost me money in harddrive space, and backup costs, for my Wedding and Portrait business model. The largest prints I normally sell are 24x36. My 5D3 eats up enough space as it is. A friend of mine shoots sports professionally with a 1D MkIIn with 8.2MP and he has no issues.

If I need to make large prints I enlarge the image in Photoshop, and this just got even better with Photoshop CC. For most businesses we don't need, or even want, a large MP camera.

I'd like to have it for play time, but I'm a long way away from ever paying the price of a pro body to get large MP to play with.

Anyway, I'd LIKE to have 40MP for cropping freedom... I just wouldn't want to have to pay for the harddrive space.

Hard drives..... Time marches on there too....

First hard drive I bought for work was $10,000 for a 10 megabyte drive.... Last week I bought 24 4terrabyte drives at $250 each.... That's 100 terabytes for $6000..... Quite a drop in price per byte.... This is 7 orders of magnitude... That's like buying a mansion in 1980 for $1,000,000.00 and in 2013 buying a better mansion for $0.06

LOL this is going to be rude... and your point is?

If you're spending that much on harddrives for your photography business and you want a large megapixel camera you're dealing with the wrong company here. You should visit http://www.hasselbladusa.com/

It is about time 40 megapixels became the new normal for DSLR's..... Progress marches on....

I don't know any pros who want a 40MP camera as their primary body. It may be nice for specific jobs but it will simply cost me money in harddrive space, and backup costs, for my Wedding and Portrait business model. The largest prints I normally sell are 24x36. My 5D3 eats up enough space as it is. A friend of mine shoots sports professionally with a 1D MkIIn with 8.2MP and he has no issues.

If I need to make large prints I enlarge the image in Photoshop, and this just got even better with Photoshop CC. For most businesses we don't need, or even want, a large MP camera.

I'd like to have it for play time, but I'm a long way away from ever paying the price of a pro body to get large MP to play with.

Anyway, I'd LIKE to have 40MP for cropping freedom... I just wouldn't want to have to pay for the harddrive space.

Hard drives..... Time marches on there too....

First hard drive I bought for work was $10,000 for a 10 megabyte drive.... Last week I bought 24 4terrabyte drives at $250 each.... That's 100 terabytes for $6000..... Quite a drop in price per byte.... This is 7 orders of magnitude... That's like buying a mansion in 1980 for $1,000,000.00 and in 2013 buying a better mansion for $0.06

LOL this is going to be rude... and your point is?

If you're spending that much on harddrives for your photography business and you want a large megapixel camera you're dealing with the wrong company here. You should visit http://www.hasselbladusa.com/

Last year I bought about 600 hard drives for work.... Data logging, not photography. That would be a LOT of photos

My work (that keeps the food on the table) is in a research lab.

My point about hard drive capacity and price is that storage capacities have skyrocketed and prices have plummeted. Cost of storage is so low now that it is almost free.

It is about time 40 megapixels became the new normal for DSLR's..... Progress marches on....

I don't know any pros who want a 40MP camera as their primary body. It may be nice for specific jobs but it will simply cost me money in harddrive space, and backup costs, for my Wedding and Portrait business model. The largest prints I normally sell are 24x36. My 5D3 eats up enough space as it is. A friend of mine shoots sports professionally with a 1D MkIIn with 8.2MP and he has no issues.

If I need to make large prints I enlarge the image in Photoshop, and this just got even better with Photoshop CC. For most businesses we don't need, or even want, a large MP camera.

I'd like to have it for play time, but I'm a long way away from ever paying the price of a pro body to get large MP to play with.

Anyway, I'd LIKE to have 40MP for cropping freedom... I just wouldn't want to have to pay for the harddrive space.

Hard drives..... Time marches on there too....

First hard drive I bought for work was $10,000 for a 10 megabyte drive.... Last week I bought 24 4terrabyte drives at $250 each.... That's 100 terabytes for $6000..... Quite a drop in price per byte.... This is 7 orders of magnitude... That's like buying a mansion in 1980 for $1,000,000.00 and in 2013 buying a better mansion for $0.06

LOL this is going to be rude... and your point is?

If you're spending that much on harddrives for your photography business and you want a large megapixel camera you're dealing with the wrong company here. You should visit http://www.hasselbladusa.com/

Last year I bought about 600 hard drives for work.... Data logging, not photography. That would be a LOT of photos

My work (that keeps the food on the table) is in a research lab.

My point about hard drive capacity and price is that storage capacities have skyrocketed and prices have plummeted. Cost of storage is so low now that it is almost free.

Agreed...storage is ridiculously cheap these days, more than cheap enough to support extremely high resolution RAW images from 40, 50, 60, 80mp sensors and beyond. I personally have four 2TB drives in a ReadyNAS NVX (8TB network storage device), as well as several more 1TB and 2TB drives for work storage, scratch and swap space, etc. in my workstation. All of that only costs a few hundred bucks these days. It is also ridiculously cheap to buy whole 25 disc spindles of LTH type Verbatim BluRay recordable discs for periodic permabackups and off-site storage of huge RAW files.

Storage space is probably the cheapest commodity in the photographic world, by a long shot.

3. As I've said for YEARS: APS-H is dead. Please don't keep resurrecting it. APS-H is now an unnecessary 'half way house' between APS-C and FF. The 6D particularly demonstrates that. Leave it to RIP, please! - APS-C for budget sensor, on camera flash, 'reach' (ie pixel density for certain applications - eg birding, some sports), and to make use of the wonderful array of EF-S lenses (many of which are L class in terms of image quality. - FF for more depth of field (DOF) control and per pixel sharpness, lower noise, and possibly in the (near) future, an overall much higher resolution photo - already competing with Medium Format.

Maybe you're right, APS-H is an unnecessary compromise between FF and APS-C.If you're right, we can consider G15 is an unnecessary compromise between standard point&shoot cameras and EOS M.And maybe APS-C sensor is an unnecessary compromise between P&Ss and FF.And maybe P&Ss are unnecessary compromises between smartphones and FF.And ...

Well, I think that a few compromises deserve to survive.

The comparison you're drawing between target marketing and product lines within the DSLR realm and the non-DSLR (let's call them 'P&S') realm is flawed, based on both market dynamics as well as the business / technology spectrum.

Canon produces a whole lot more P&S cameras than DSLR bodies. Many more models, and sell more P&S than DSLRs (though DSLRs have increased as a proportion of P&S in the past 10 years in particular).

There is a lot more market latitude for models like the G15 and even the EOS-M (above the standard small P&S) than for an APS-H between APS-C and FF. Also, if one looks carefully at DSLR lenses, most are best suited to either an APS-C (EF-S) OR FF (EF). EF lenses on APS-H can of course 'work' - but often they are better on either a FF or APS-C depending on the required application.

Similarly, a comparison of P&S between smart phone and DSLR isn't quite justified... though certainly the market will segment with an increasing number of smart phone cameras, as some of them have decent cameras included in recent times.

I do appreciate that there are some compromises between A and Z which do deserve to survive. That's where I see APS-C sitting (though even that I concede in the future may disappear... not in the near future, but possibly who knows what will happen in 20 years?!) 20 years ago the thought of a (FF) digital DSLR was a very 'futuristic' idea, let alone one with Live-View that could record movies.

Cheers

Paul

Logged

I appreciate using my 7D and 350D cameras along with a host of lenses & many accessories to capture quality photos, and share with friends.

About the only thing that I could see them adding "late" would be "more high ISO" that is really noisy.

As I am not involved in software programming, how does that work, if a camera manufacturer sees the necestiy to crank up the ISO? Sorry for my ignorance in so many tech related things...

I am not sure that is just purely a software thing. There is firmware involved, but that firmware is really instructing the hardware to do something, and if the hardware is incapable, then I don't think just a firmware update will do it. When it comes to ISO, the firmware is really instructing the hardware to use a different gain. I don't really know enough about electronics at that scale to know definitively if the hardware explicitly needs to support a specific analog gain, but I am willing to bet that it is more complicated than a "simple" firmware update to, say, add a native ISO 25600 to a camera that previously only supported ISO 12800. I bet the hardware needs to support it first.

I am not sure if a digital sensor would be the same. Exmor, which does pretty much everything except the initial pixel read digitally (bits, rather than charge)...so it might be easier to simply add a higher ISO setting with Exmor via just a firmware update than it would be for any other sensor.

I may be wrong (please correct me if I am), but I had the understanding that the "native" ISO involved boosting the analog gain, where as the "expanded" ISO increased the gain after the analog to digital conversion. If this is correct, then it would not be unreasonable to suggest that another stop or two (or even more depending on how much DR you're willing to sacrifice--it's just a multiplication factor) of expanded ISO capability could be added via a "simple" firmware update. Expanding the native ISO is an entirely different matter which would require lots of testing and tweaking since it is done more at the hardware level.

For 200-1600 lower intermediary values are reduced (i.e. iso 1000 has a base of 1600) and 6400 and above are pushed from 3200, that's why for raw you're better off @3200 and push it in postprocessing yourself.

So my guess is that Canon could add iso25600 on crop by fw, they just wouldn't dare because it would look even more crappy than h1/12800 and as written above it's only good for jpeg or video.

I'm curious about the 2 "pro" bodies - one of will be the high megapixel camera but the other will be?.....

Maybe two high megapixel? 5D3big (3D?) and 1DXbig? Or will the APS-H surprise us and come back to a new life?

The 5DIII was the 1DX were co-developed together. The 5DIII really is a 1Dx lite. Both cameras benefitted from the co-developement. I suspect that something simular will occurr with the big chip cameras. A 1D series with a large super-sized sensor and pro spec, and a 5D sized camera with a simular sensor and features but less fps and a more semi - pro orientated build / features.

My point about hard drive capacity and price is that storage capacities have skyrocketed and prices have plummeted. Cost of storage is so low now that it is almost free.

Drives are very cheap. Doing backup of the drives continues to be a stone in the shoe, though

That's what more drives are for.

You're missing the point.

That is why raid 1 was invented, two identical drives that automatically backs itself up to the other. Sure, there is always the risk that your house catches fire and the drives are destroyed but then it's quite hard to get round that.